December 29-31, 2009
Dec 29 01:15 Interesting Questions...And A Few Answers Dec 29 09:06 Georgia On My Mind? Dec 29 20:36 Tarryl Isn't Ready For Primetime? Dec 30 01:40 Obama Administration Dropped The Ball Dec 30 08:07 Who Wrote This? Dec 30 17:25 It's The War Stupid Dec 31 00:14 Speaker Kelliher's Unallotment Problems Dec 31 00:57 Unallotment Reaction
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Interesting Questions...And A Few Answers
This post at Reality Check about the TEA Party movement asks a couple of great questions about the movement. Permit me to give a couple answers to these questions:
Unless we are able to foresee this limitation of the Tea Party movement and take concrete measures to prevent it we will see the passion and engagement of these millions of Americans frittered away until just cynicism is left.The best way to avoid the cynicism is to get politicians understand that TEA Party activists demand accountability and fiscal restraint. The politicians I've talked with understand that already. In fact, it's their identity as politicians. In fact, most are bigtime supporters of the Live Within Our Means movement.
Passion about politics is great and likely the fervor of Tea Party participants will help fuel a 2010 resurgence of Republicans in the midterm elections. But what after that? In fact, what during it?
Another way to channel the energy into a productive political force is by reminding the TEA Party faithful that there's alot of bureaucratic crud that's built up over the years, crud that's going to take lots of time to undo the damage. In other words, this isn't a one-and-done type thing. It's important that TEA Party activists preech vigilance, persistence and making common sense arguments on the issues we care most deeply about.
Here's an interestin observation on the TEA Party movement from the post:
Here's the problem and, as I see it, it's a problem that is actually sort of built right into the Tea Party movement from its inception. That would be its essentially leaderless nature.The beauty of the TEA Party movement is that its activists don't pledge allegiance to a group of politicians. RatherTEA Party activists pledge allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and to the liberty our Founding Fathers put their highest priority on.
Isn't it past time that we dropped the petty Cult-Of-Personality politics and reverted back to the principles that made us the freest, most prosperous nation of the last 2 centuries?
If there are any political leaders of the TEA Party movement, they'd be Gov. Sarah Palin, Reps. Mike Pence and Michele Bachmann and Sen. Jim DeMint. Having watched Rep. Bachmann speak at the 9/12 TEA Party in St. Cloud, it's obvious that she gets it in terms of what the TEA Party movement is about.
Rep. Bachmann understands that it's about returning to first principles, especially respecting the Constitution and, as a result, limited government. Based on her speech, it's apparent that she understands that it's about accountability and being a public servant.
There's no way I can agree with this statement:
There was no unifying single goal of the Tea Partiers and no agency or party directing them.It's true that the two major political parties don't control TEA Party events because they're bottom-up in nature. It's totally false to say that there's "no unifying single goal." The single biggest goal is to return to a federalist, limited government federal government. The Obama administration's out-of-control spending, its bailoutmania and its takeover of CM and Chrysler.
The TEA Party mocvement will continue to confound those who aren't part of it because we're living in a top-down, control freak political environment. The TEA Party movement is a bottom up movement, which is why it confuses people.
Posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 1:19 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Dec-09 03:08 PM
Do you attribute any credibility to reports of a schism, like Rome and Byzantium, and of corporate sponsorship and looting of one faction?
tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/party_foul_tea_partiers_eat_their_own_in_bitter_in.php
tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/majority_of_tea_party_groups_spending_went_to_gop.php?ref=mp
You seem an insider. I am not. Is there a grassroots struggle against a faction? Green tea vs herbal?
What's happening?
Georgia On My Mind?
Monday, President Obama issued a statement on the latest terrorist attack. It would've been nice had President Obama reacted quicker. William McGurn's WSJ op-ed puts things in perfect perspective:
The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidents-with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as "people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution."President Obama's staff rushed in immediately to tell him he'd won the Nobel Peace Prize but they waited 3 hours before telling him about Iran's latest killings. What's worse is that it took President Obama 3 days before talking about the foiled terrorist attack.
In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?
For a man whose whole appeal has been wrapped in powerful imagery, President Obama appears strikingly obtuse about the symbolism of his own actions: e.g., squeezing in a condemnation of Iran before a round of golf. With every statement not backed up by action, with every refusal to meet a leader such as the Dalai Lama, with every handshake for a Chavez, Mr. Obama is defining himself to foreign leaders who are sizing him up and have only one question in mind: How much can we get away with?
Anyone who remembers Russia's invasion of South Ossetia remembers that then-Sen. Obama's response was tepid whereas Sen. McCain's answer was strong . Here's Obama's initial statement:
"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," Obama said in a written statement. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected."Contrast that with Sen. McCain's initial response:
"[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.The Russian invasion of South Ossetia happened on August 10, 2008. It wasn't until August 12, 2008 that then-Sen. Obama reacted forcefully. I noted in this post that then, too, Obama was vacationing in Hawaii:
"The government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen."
Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, on Tuesday read a statement blaming Russia for increasing tensions in the Caucasus.Liberals quickly criticized President Bush for not reacting quickly enough after the 9/11 attacks for their liking. Chief among those critics was Marty Meehan :
"No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country," said Obama, 47. "There is no possible justification for these attacks," he added.
Meehan was quoted as saying "I don't buy the notion Air Force One was a target ... That's just PR. That's just spin."Nary a peep was heard from President Obama's allies in the print media when he took 3 days to denounce the Iranian regime's violent squashing of the people's uprising.
President Obama's reticence to quickly respond to a terrorist attack makes the United States look timid. It also makes us look weak in the terrorists' eyes. (If there's anything that President Obama is good at with regards to national security, it's that he's great at procrastination and making the United States look positively wimpy.)
This is why we shouldn't have elected a toy messiah to do a man's job.
Posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:14 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Dec-09 11:47 AM
I have seen probabilities published, the likelihood of being involved in a flight involving a terror incident is powers of ten less than that of being hit by lightning.
Why not a humongo amount of bucks to be spent on a War Against Lightning?
It would make as much fiscal sense.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 29-Dec-09 04:07 PM
You don't have to spend big bucks if you can buy a few spines for Obama and his half-baked cronies. Spines are cheap. Getting this bunch to USE them, well, considerably more difficult.
But this reminds me that Obama's "symbolism" is only what he wants to be and to symbolize. He cannot imagine, for example, that flying Air Force One low over the Statue of Liberty, with a fighter escort, might be seen "symbolically" as a cause for unease among New Yorkers. It was not what he intended, therefore the "wrong" reaction never happened. The man is not so much a leftist, or stupid, or evil, as one just simply living in his own narcissistic fantasy world.
Tarryl Isn't Ready For Primetime?
I've never hidden the fact that, as a conservative, I don't agree with Tarryl Clark very often. For that matter, I don't agree often with any liberals. Still, I can recognize talent even if I disagree with what they're saying. At this point, I don't see the talent of Zach Rodvold, especially after reading this :
The campaign manager for Bachmann's opponent in the Sixth District, Tarryl Clark, issued an unrelated fundraising appeal to supporters on Monday attacking the Stillwater congresswoman for these types of speaking engagements.It isn't that Mr. Rodvold is suggesting that Tarryl won't be "raising money from her national [progressive] base". After all, she'll be accepting tons of PAC money from now until Election Day. After all, she's already accepted 10's of thousands of dollars from unions. I think it's that he's jealous that Michele Bachmann has a donor base that dwearfs Tarryl's.
"Congresswoman Bachmann will spend 2010 just like she spent 2009, promoting her personal agenda and continuing to obstruct reform," Zach Rodvold wrote. "She's already booked to travel across the country, speaking at Tea Party Conventions and raising money from her national conservative base."
Rodvold's statement that "Congresswoman Bachmann" is obstructing reform is laughable in the extreme. Last year, Tarryl said that the Legislature couldn't find more than $500,000,000 in budget cuts and cost savings :
Hauser: You can talk about reform all you want but reform inevitably ends up meaning that some people that are getting state services now won't be getting them after this reform, whether it be in HHS, whether it be in education, early childhood, any of those things.I pointed out in that post that $500,000,000 represented 1.4 percent of the budget at that time. Anyone that thinks there's less than 2 percent waste or inefficiency in a state budget isn't a reformer. That's how a status quo advocate spins things.
Tarryl: Sure, and an estimate, a good estimate would be that maybe we could figure out how to save about $500 million.
Let's face other facts, too. Washington needs tons of reforming. It's foolish to think that sending a former lobbyist like Tarryl to the lobbyist capitol of the universe will spark a reform revival, especially considering her already-cozy relationship with 'Bike Path' Jim Oberstar :
I'm proud to support my friend, Senator Tarryl Clark, in her campaign for Congress.Rep. Oberstar's penchant for loading up transportation bills with low-priority earmarks is legendary. The fact that he's praising Tarryl for knowing her constituents' transportation needs speaks volumes. That's code for 'I'll make sure she brings home the pork.' That isn't reform. That's business-as-usual.
Tarryl is a seasoned, experienced legislator. She knows her district, and she knows central Minnesota. She knows the needs of the people of this area, their economic needs, their transportation needs, and their community service needs. She knows how to work in a legislative environment, to work across party lines and to bring people together for a consensus to build a better future for us in Minnesota.
Tarryl is a winner-she's already won in this district. With your support, she will win this campaign and serve the people of Minnesota effectively.
We need Tarryl in Congress and you can make sure she gets there. Please join me in supporting Tarryl Clark.
There's nothing in Tarryl Clark's record that says she's a reformer. In fact, I'd argue that there's nothing in her history that she's anything but a dotrinaire liberal.
Next time Tarryl runs for higher office, she should find a major league talent to handle communications. She didn't do that this time.
Posted Tuesday, December 29, 2009 8:36 PM
No comments.
Obama Administration Dropped The Ball
Last weekend, Obama administration propagandist Robert Gibbs tried blaming the failed terrorist attack on the Bush administration. That isn't surprising considering this administration's we're-never-at-fault mantra. Mr. Gibbs' attempt to spin this as a Bush administration failure just got infinitely more difficult now that it's been reported that the CIA knew about the terrorist :
A CIA official prepared a report on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab after a meeting with the suspect's father in November, who shared information about his son's extremist views, CNN reported Tuesday. The report was sent to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, but it sat there for five weeks and was not disseminated, a "reliable source" said. "Had that information been shared...[he] might have been denied passage on the Northwest Airlines flight," the source reportedly said.
Mr. President, You can't blame this on the Bush administration. They didn't have anything to do with
YOUR CIA
not getting this important information into the right people's hands. I'd further suggest that President Obama instruct Mr. Gibbs to apologize to the Bush administration after blaming them for this foiled terrorist attack.
President Obama can order all the reviews he wants but the problem won't be solved by reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Until this administration gets serious about hunting down terrorists and interrogating terrorists instead of reading them their Miranda rights, we'll be stuck in this defensive posture.
There was never a doubt that the Bush administration was constantly on the offensive against the terrorists. There's doubts aplenty that the Obama administration is on the offensive against the terrorists. I'm not suggesting that President Obama wants something bad to happen. I'm just saying that President Obama's policies aren't keeping us safe thus far.
Tonight on O'Reilly, a criminal defense attorney actually tried making the case that this was a crime, not an act of war. This defense attorney then said that President Obama had "eliminated the word enemy combatant." It was at that point that Gary Bertnsen, a retired CIA operative working now as a FNC miltary analyst, interjected a coherent thought. Mr. Berntsen rightly pointed out that (a) the term enemy combatant is part of the Geneva Convention and that (b) the term is in the Geneva Convention because terrorists aren't afforded the same protections as uniformed soldiers because "they fight outside the laws of war."
This Detroit News op-ed
highlights something important that the Obama administration has rejected:
The State Department shouldn't be giving visas to any of the 550,000 people worldwide identified as terror risks. Some people on that list certainly may be wrongfully named. But it's better to offend an innocent few than to risk allowing a bona-fide terrorist access to the country.Bush administration policy was that it was better to err on the side of fighting too aggressively against the terrorist rather than fighting too timidly, which seems to be the Obama administration's policy.
HINT TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Al-Qa'ida hasn't declared a cessation of hostilities with us, which means that we shouldn't treat terrorists as criminals.
Terrorists don't deserve Miranda rights protections. That gives them the right to be silent, which interferes with the CIA's ability to gather important information from a captured terorrist. Think of how much information we might've gathered about Yemen's terrorist infrastructure had we treated Abdulmutallub as an enemy combatant rather than letting him hide behind the Miranda Warning's protections.
Liberals love asking why conservatives don't trust the criminal justice system. That's a stupid argument. It isn't about trusting or not trusting the justice system. It's about whether we do everything possible to gather intelligence and thwart other terrorist attacks.
This administration, despite everything they've said, has been a failure at protecting us from terrorist attacks. The last 2 terrorists have a common thread, too, in that they both were 'activated' by the same radical cleric, Anwar Awlaki, who's living in Yemen now. Not coincidentally, Abdulmutallub just travelled to Yemen.
Considering all that we know now, these words ring extremely hollow:
Obama said there were several "deficiencies" in the intelligence-gathering process, and that information about the suspect "could have and should have been pieced together."This isn't a matter of putting new policies in place. It's a matter of getting people notifying the right intelligence and law enforcement agencies when someone reports that his son is a terrorist.
"It's becoming clear that the system that's been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have," Obama said.
The fact that the CIA was tracking this terrorist is proof that this administration failed in its most important responsibility to protect the American people. no amount of presidential bloviation will erase that fact.
Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 6:07 AM
No comments.
Who Wrote This?
Conservatives have their long knives out hoping to score political points against a suddenly vulnerable Obama administration. Check out this column written by Obama critic Bill Kristol :
"I hope the terrorists don't think this is a good time to attack," I said, looking protectively at the White House, which always looks smaller and more vulnerable and beautiful than you expect, no matter how often you see it up close.OUCH!!! That's a shot at the Obama administration's less-than-stellar performance in preventing terrorist attacks if ever I've heard one.
I thought our guard might be down because of the holiday; now I realize our guard is down every day.
If we can't catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn't check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?I'll give Mr. Kristol credit for this much: when he unloads both barrels, there's alot of damaged landscape.
The bad news for the Obama administration is that Bill Kristol didn't write this stunning rebuke of the Obama administration's homeland security apparatus. It wasn't Charles Krauthammer, either.
This scathing review was written by Maureen Dowd .
Yes, that Maureen Dowd. The crazed liberal NYTimes columnist Maureen Dowd. Ms. Dowd's attack should unsettle an already wobbly administration. Last night, Charles Krauthammer ridiculed President Obama during the Roundtable. Even A.B. Stoddard was disgusted when she learned from Chris Wallace that the CIA had been tracking Abdulmutallab.
This is one of those moments when a president's fiercest defenders understand that they can't defend or spin something, that it's a time when he'll just have to take his lumps.
Before he left for vacation, Obama tried to shed his Spock mien and juice up the empathy quotient on jobs. But in his usual inspiring/listless cycle, he once more appeared chilly in his response to the chilling episode on Flight 253, issuing bulletins through his press secretary and hitting the links. At least you have to seem concerned.President Obama hasn't stepped into the role of commander-in-chief. Instead, he's stepped into shoes that more closely resemble those of the pontificator-in-chief or professor-in-chief. That isn't what America needs right now. What we need is someone who is competent on national security issues. What we need is someone who will persistently engage our terrorist enemies in mortal battle.
President Obama hasn't shown the grittiness and persistence that's needed to destroy al-Qa'ida. His personna is almost detached. For all his faults on domestic policy, one thing that Americans knew about President Bush, it's that they understood that he was taking the fight to the terrorists day-after-day-after-day. President Bush's relentlessness was reassuring. Looking back, objective people understand that he protected us from another terrorist attack.
By contrast, we've seen three terrorist attacks this year under President Obama's watch. Thoughtful people esentially agree that each was preventable.
It's time for President Obama to review his administration's policies and his administration's personnel. Starting today would be a good start. Personnel-wise, a good start would be firing Janet Napolitano. Policywise, it'd be wise if he stopped his 'open arms to tyrants' policy. Tyrants should be punished, not coddled. Incompetents should be terminated, not kept on.
Thanks to Maureen Dowd's criticism, that possibility seems a bit more likely.
Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:42 AM
Comment 1 by Ed at 30-Dec-09 09:25 AM
What are the three terrorist attacks? One was the Christmas eunich bomber. One was the Ft. Hood shootings. But I can't remember what the third was?
Can anyone help me out?
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 30-Dec-09 12:45 PM
Little Rock, Arkansas Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American Muslim opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office. Private William Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded.
Thanks to the wonders of the internet it took me all of 2 seconds to find....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009
LL
Comment 3 by Orion at 30-Dec-09 02:06 PM
"Personnel-wise, a good start would be firing Janet Napolitano."
Ms. Napolitano recently took swift and effective action to deal with this crisis. She wrote an op-ed piece in USA-TODAY defending her swift and effective actions in response to this attack.
Oh, wait...
It's The War Stupid
In 1992, James Carville infamously wrote "It's the economy, Stupid" on a chalkboard inside the Clinton war room. If there's a modern application for that cliche, it would be the American people telling the Obama administration saying "It's the war, Stupid." It seems utterly lost on the Obama administration that al-Qa'ida is still at war with us.
Last night, a criminal defense attorney named Tamara Holder argued on O'Reilly that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be prosecuted like a criminal. Former CIA operative Gary Berntsen dismantled her arguments in this video:
Here's a partial transcript of the interview:
ERIC BOLLING: As you may know, the Nigerian man who attempted to set off a bomb on a plane in Detroit was arrested, Mirandized, and taken to a federal prison in Michigan. He was charged in the criminal court system, where he faces up to 20 years in prison. But should he have been taken to Gitmo, interrogated and treated like an enemy combatant? Joining us now from Chicago is criminal defense attorney Tamara Holder. And with us in studio is a retired CIA operations officer, Gary Berntsen.This appears to be the Obama administration's mindset, too. This isn't a crime. It's an act of war. This isn't even mass murder of the Dahmer or Bundy types. Everything about Friday's attempted terrorist attack screams jihadist martyr attack. Abdul Mutallab was prepared to die that day on that plane. That's why he got a window seat right next to the wing (Seat 19A) where the fuel is stored.
Tamara, this guy tried to blow up 300 innocent people in the air over Detroit on Christmas day. We should give this guy a break?
HOLDER: I'm not saying give him a break. Whoever said that? He needs to be charged in America. Look, there's something called Special Aircraft Jurisdiction. What that means is that, if you are in an American plane bound for America, you do something or you commit a crime, you are subject to American courts. Just because we give him rights, just because we give him a trial, that doesn't mean that we have some failed American justice system.
I don't know what the big deal is. We're gonna send him to Guantanamo and then what? Send him back to Illinois like we're gonna do with all the other detainees? That doesn't even make sense.
BOLLING: Well, Tamara, I'm trying to figure it out. Is it a crime or is it a terrorist attack? Because if it's a terrorist attack, you can be held as an enemy combatant and be interrogated.
HOLDER: No. You're wrong. Actually, in March, Obama dispelled the word enemy combatant. There is no word enemy combatant. I don't know why Hoekstra and Candace Miller and all these people are saying that he's an enemy combatant. There is no such term in America anymore. Obama dispelled with that. He is a terrorist. He did commit a terrorist attack. He was not on the battlefield. He is supposed to be tried and convicted in America. Just because we give him his rights and we read him his Miranda warning doesn't mean that our American justice system has failed.
BOLLING: Alright Gary. Go ahead.
BERNTSEN: Well, first of all, the term enemy combatant does exist. Enemy combatants are defined by the Geneva Convention. They're not in uniform. They're carrying their...they're hiding their weapons. They're not being led by a competent authority and they're not following the rules of war.
BOLLING: And they want to kill us.
BERNTSEN: Al-Qaida is an organization. It is a non-state actor that has declared war on us. We need to recognize that we are actually at war with these guys. This guy didn't do a carjacking. He didn't hold up a 7-11. He tried to commit mass murder as part of and in support of Al-Qaida's war on the United States.
If we treated him and tried him in a military tribunal, as Roosevelt did in 1942 with those Germans that came ashore in Long Island, near where I'm from, and in Florida, we would have the military at him interrogating him. And what we're fighting with right now is time. The more access we have to him right now, to find out everything that he knows without having his lawyer between us and him, the quicker we can track down other people who are planning to conduct mass murder against us.
BOLLING: Follow that up, Gary. What else can we find out?
BERNTSEN: Where was he recruited? Who trained him. What other people were trained along with him that are planning on committing mass murder against America?
BOLLING: Tamara, Gary makes a very good point. This a little different than a guy holding up a 7-11.
HOLDER: Of course but at the same time, he was attempting to commit a crime against American whether it is holding up a store and trying to kill one person or whether he's trying to kill a whole group of people. The issue is that he committed a crime in America on an American plane and he should be tried accordingly. To interrogate him any differently...he's still gonna give us plenty of information.
Officer Berntsen is exactly right. Abdul Mutallab was acting on al-Qaida's behalf in their war against the United States. Ms. Holder is exactly wrong about the terrorist giving us " plenty of information :"
"Authorities are holding out hope that [Abdulmutallab] will change his mind and cooperate with the probe, the officials said."Mr. President, it's time you realized that all your diplomatic initiatives are utterly ineffective. We're fighting a real, honest-to-goodness war with a bunch of persistent, ruthless terrorists. There's only one proper response to acts of war: aggressively pursue these jihadists with our military and intelligence assets. Fighting this war with intensity and with total ruthlessness is the only way we'll defeat these jihadists.
The Obama administration's unwillingness to admit that their policies have failed has led them to push back against their critics rather than reviewing and changing their policies. While the Obama administration's allies decry the Republicans' attempts to "score cheap political points", Americans wonder whether this administration is serious about fighting the jihadists with everything in this nation's arsenal.
It didn't help that, after President Obama declared that his administration wouldn't rest until the terrorists were defeated, he left to return to his round of golf in Paradise, aka Hawaii.
It's often possible to tell what's important to a person by how much time he devotes to the subject. We've known for some time that taking over America's health care system is President Obama's highest priority. Day after day, week after week, President Obama has fought for and gave speeches on health care reform.
By contrast, President Obama has spent almost no time talking about the importance of defeating the terrorists. Now the DCCC is pushing back, saying that President Obama "has been much more aggressive about going after al Qaeda than the Bush administration."
That's insulting. Was President Obama's procrastination a sign of President Obama's commitment to aggressively attacking the jihadists?
It's insulting because it took President Obama more time to figure out whether he'd increase troop levels in Afghanistan than it took the Bush administration to destroy al-Qaida's sanctuary in Afghanistan.
Mr. President, if you'd spent half as much time focusing on fighting the "real war" as you spend talking about it, the troops would've already been in theater. Next time, don't talk. Get it done.
Thus far, it's accurate to say about the Obama administration that after everything is said and done, more was said than done.
Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 5:33 PM
Comment 1 by Tamara Holder at 31-Dec-09 04:44 PM
I'd just like to clarify a few things:
1) I never said I supported Obama's delineation of the word "enemy combatant." I simply stated that he did so and, as a result, we cannot call the terrorists that name. Call them whatever you want: murderers, terrorists, worthless human beings....; also, I'm not a Geneva Convention expert but I believe that terrorist organizations are NOT protected under the Geneva Convention; thus, cannot be called "enemy combatant" even if Obama kept the term.
2) Under George Bush, Jose Padilla was held for 3 years in military custody. Then, Bush changed his mind and he was charged in American federal courts. The man was given just 17 years in prison. I think that's a pretty low sentence, don't you?
3) Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, was also charged in American courts and is now serving a life sentence in federal prison. This also occurred under the Bush administration.
4) I found no evidence of the Republicans disputing Bush's decision to try these men in America, instead of in a military tribunal.
5) I have been very open about my disappointment in the Obama administration. In fact, I don't think I have written one favorable blog about any of his decisions, particularly in regard to health care and the war in Afghanistan. I am someone with a growing amount of "buyer's remorse."
6) Don't blame me for stating facts. If I misstate the facts, I deserve to take the heat.
7) I wrote a blog detailing my position on O'Reilly at http://tamaraholder.squarespace.com
8) Happy New Year!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Dec-09 05:08 PM
Tamara, Thanks for the note. I simply pointed out that the term enemy combatant can't be removed from the debate because it's part of the Geneva Convention. Short of us opting out of the GC, we're stuck with that terminology.
2) In the Padilla case, the appellate court that heard the case before the Bush administration switched gears gave President Bush a severe tongue-lashing. I believe that the majority opinion was written by J. Michael Luttig.
3) You're right about Reid. Let's remember, though, that he was captured before the military tribunals were initially put in place.
5) I appreciate you stating your disappointment with President Obama. I'm irritated with people that act like their guy has done no wrong.
6) It's verifiable that this statement is factually inaccurate:
he's still gonna give us plenty of information.He's already stopped talking on the advice of his attorney. That's why he should've been sent to Gitmo. That's the only way a full FBI or CIA interrogation can happen.
8) HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU TOO!!!
Comment 2 by Grey Wolf at 01-Jan-10 12:28 PM
First, he is not a 'terrorist'. Homeland Security says that he is only a 'man-made disaster' which provides him his rights & protects him.
However, saying that, I am not sure any AMerican would be given the same rights had they been caught trying to kill innocent people. Our govt., lately sees us as the real threat (Pelosi calling us un-Americans at Town Hall meetings is 1 example). You & I are the threat to Washington.
If you want a great book to read, about a small town in America that stands up to federal tyranny & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution, then read this book. It's great & could be our hometown.
History may be calling on all of us now to actually find out destiny in life & leave our legacy. It's that good.
www.booksbyoliver.com
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Jan-10 12:51 PM
First, GW, he's a terrorist. Just because Janet Napolitano won't call him that doesn't mean he isn't one. God help us if she's the final arbiter on such things.
Second, it isn't man-made disasters. It's man-CAUSED disasters. Commenters: This is a pet peeve of mine. Get it right!!!
Speaker Kelliher's Unallotment Problems
Earlier today, Judge Kathleen Gearin issued a TRO preventing Gov. Pawlenty's unallotments to be executed as planned. According to PIM , Speaker Kelliher called it "a victory for all Minnesotans." Here's more from her interview with PIM:
"[The order] clearly lays out that the way Gov. Pawlenty used unallotment at the end of the last legislative session was not constitutional," she elaborated in an interview with PIM. "The governor took a go-it-alone attitude, and when you are facing a budget crisis of the size and magnitude we are, that is unacceptable.""All solutions" is another DFL euphemism for "We're gonna raise your taxes." That isn't going to fly with people struggling to make ends meet. Whenever the DFL starts talking tax increases, they always talk about "taxing the rich" so that "they pay their fair share."
The ruling will only add to the state's mounting deficit problems, Kelliher acknowledged.
"As this debt grows, Minnesotans expect that their leaders will come together and solve these bigger problems," she said. "That is what I'm going to call for in the House." She also added that "all solutions" remain on the table for fixing the budget deficit.
Whenever small business owners hear that, they start heading for the nearest state line because that's code for "We're raising taxes on small businesses", aka the job creation engines of America. There's no way Gov. Pawlenty signs a tax increase.
As for the TRO, I think a strong case can be made that the DFL legislature didn't meet its constitutional obligation. I've pointed out several times that the DFL's only balanced budget of the session was the one passed with 5 minutes left in the session. Had Gov. Pawlenty signed the tax increase and the spending bills, the forecasted surplus at the end of the biennium was $3,625.
That's already disappeared into a sea of red ink. It's now forecast that the deficit for the rest of this biennium is $1,200,000,000. Last year, Rep. Steve Gottwalt said during a townhall meeting that raising the top income tax bracket by 1 percentage point would generate new revenue of less than $400,000,000. That's for a tax increase that was in place for the entire biennium. The TRO expires in March, 2010, which there'd only 16 months left in the 24 month biennium. That means a 1 percentage point tax increase on the top bracket would net less than $275,000,000.
That'd still leave the legislature with a $1,000,000,000 deficit to plug. They'd either have to raise taxes on the middle classor agree to cut $1,000,000,000 or a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
Speaker Kelliher and the DFL legislature will be forced to argue for that tax increase while it's passing a $1,000,000,000 bonding bill and while the GOP gubernatorial candidates are campaigning on cutting taxes and cutting spending to bring prosperity to the state after a long job creation drought.
I don't have any insider information on this but I'd be surprised if GOP candidates don't campaign on an agenda of reform and prosperity next year. Prosperity and reform aren't words in the DFL dictionary. In fact, rumor has it that if you look in the DFL's dictionary for the definition of prosperity and reform, you'll only find a question mark, not a word answer.
Let's remember that there wasn't much unity amongst DFL House members on increasing taxes. Rep. Gene Pelowski was openly critical of the DFL's tax increase bills. Now he's got a primary challenger. I'd say that the odds of him walking the tax increase plank for Speaker Kelliher are tiny at best.
It might be that Speaker Kelliher wants to campaign on raising taxes but I'd doubt it. That might play well within the DFL but I've seen survey after survey say that most Minnesotans don't like tax increases.
UPDATE: This passage from Judge Kathleen Gearin's ruling jumped off the page at me:
The court is aware that the actual revenues received by the State since the beginning of the 2010/2011 biennium are even less than predicted in the February dismal forecast. On December 2, Minnesota's Management and Budget Department reported that general fund revenues for the present two-year budget period are forecast to be $1.156 billion below pre-biennium estimates mainly because of a decline in tax receipts. Even if the budget had been balanced by painful give and take between the Executive and Legislative branches, the Governor would have had to use his unallotment authority before the end of the biennium.This is significant because Judge Gearin is essentially saying that the minute that the TRO expires, Gov. Pawlenty will be within his rights to unallot to balance the budget.
Earlier in her ruling, Judge Gearin said that she wouldn't rule on whether unallotment was constitutional because it's already been decided that it's constitutional.
What this essentially means is that the March 1, 2010 hearing will determine what parameters future governors will have to live within. Judge Gearin appears to have already said that Gov. Pawlenty will be able to unallot sometime in the near future.
Technnorati: Deficits , Speaker Kelliher , Tax Increases , Status Quo , DFL , Fiscal Restraint , Small Businesses , Job Creation , Reforms , Prosperity , Tim Pawlenty , MNGOP , Election 2010
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 2:27 AM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 31-Dec-09 06:22 AM
First, thank you for a great 2009 at LFR!
Now, can you imagine four years of this syrupy, condescending, misleading, vacuous prose from a Governor Kelliher?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 31-Dec-09 07:42 AM
R, Thanks. It's been a great year here at LFR. I've interviewed some of the biggest newsmakers in the nation, which has been a thrill for me.
We've certainly seen alot of BAD HISTORY get made, too, & I've been part of history, too, as part of the ever-intensifying TEA Party Movement.
To the liberals who visit, if you think you've weathered the storm, YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET!!!
Comment 3 by eric z. at 02-Jan-10 01:45 PM
We all appreciate your hard work, Gary.
And, I've seen something. What more, via Tea Party activism or other channels.
You tease with promises. When will we see more. January, or general election time.
Do you see anyone in Minnesota politics besides perhaps Emmer and Bachmann as strongly embracing Tea Party thinking - separate the question, now, later, preelection?
Perhaps it's more a future post than a comment.
Again, your time writing IS appreciated by many, not necessarily all in the GOP.
Keep at it, please.
Unallotment Reaction
Several GOP legislators are weighing in on Judge Gearin's TRO ruling.
Here's Rep. Laura Brod's reaction:
Last session, the Democrats walked away from the negotiating table and gave up the leadership authority granted to them by the people of Minnesota and instead decided upon a strategy in which they simply criticize the Governor. Lacking real solutions to the budget problems, they took the easy way out. The Governor did the hard work for them. If Democrats cannot solve problems working with the Governor, they now have shown that they are willing to use the courts rather than legislate their way out of controversial and difficult decisions. Through their use of legislative resources, they even found a way to not even have to pay their legal bills-but, unfortunately, the taxpayers will.Here's Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer's reaction:
The focus on unallotment disquises a real long-term problem: spending is out of control and unsustainable. We need to do things differently. There is a clear need to prioritize our spending so that we do not continue to have deficit after deficit year after year. If the Democrats really wanted to solve the problem and minimize the Governor's use of unallotment in the future, the solution is quite simple: don't spend more than you have.
Judge Gearin is the same one in the Frankin/Coleman Canvassing Board.Here's Rep. Pat Garofalo's reaction:
She says law says can do allotment only if an "unforeseen" budget shortfall. That law does not qualify the ability of the governor to unallot. The DOR must ascertain that the condition exists and then the Governor can unallot. Gearin is wrong that there is a qualification of "unforeseen".
Here is the link to a brief on it with a quote on this law.
Whether it is unallotment or legislative action, the result will be the same...government will have to live within it's means and trimmed in size.Here's House GOP Whip Dan Severson's reaction:
This is just another example of over-reaching of judicial activism that is infringing on the separation of powers. If they really want to go there, we then need to legislatively restrict their ability to legislate from the bench.I did a quick skim of the Research Department's brief on unallotment. This section jumped out at me:
The first prerequisite to unallotment is that the Commissioner of Finance "determines that probable receipts for the general fund will be less than anticipated, and that the amount available for the remainder of the biennium will be less than needed..."I don't know whether that condition existed at the time of Gov. Pawlenty's announcement but I'm positive that that condition currently exists. In other words, even if Judge Gearin's ruling stands, Gov. Pawlenty will be able to unallot the minute the TRO expires.
In other words, if Minnesota's Supreme Court rules that Gov. Pawlenty should've waited until a deficit existed, the point would be moot in this instance. It appears as though the minute a deficit appears AND the budget reserve is exhausted, the governor has the authority to unallot.
UPDATE: King's post on what Judge Gearin's ruling means is today's must reading.
Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 4:54 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 31-Dec-09 06:16 AM
To hear the DFL tell it, Gov. Pawlenty has the money, just won't spend it. I'm sympathetic with the Court's ruling in that Pawlenty may indeed have acted prematurely. But it never should have come to this.
Barring another "override six" / Ben Nelson / "health impact fee" embarrassment, the GOP House and Governor still stand firmly in the way of new revenue via new taxation.
Therefore, the DFL must cut something else and they could have gone to the Governor to make that swap, months ago in fact. If they truly think this was an urgent need, they could have got the money to those "needy" that much sooner.
But of course, this is all politics. The DFL wants the issue, tyring to emulate the "I'm not Bush" script.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 31-Dec-09 07:38 AM
R, You're EXACTLY RIGHT!!! They could've passed any number of the GOP's reforms, which would've saved the state tens of millions of dollars, which would've saved GAMC & this program.
I'll add that the DFL bargained in bad faith, hoping to force a tax increase during a special session & possibly even using a government shutdown to get their tax increase.
Comment 3 by Joe Doakes at 31-Dec-09 04:35 PM
The judge made up her ruling out of whole cloth. Bad decision.
The crux of her ruling is that Pawlenty signed the spending bills knowing the revenue for them wasn't there at the time, then used unallotment when the revenue didn't show up in a form he could live with.
She's saying he was Constitutionally required to veto the spending bills when presented rather than sign them and hope the Legislature might come up acceptable revenue bills.
That unfairly shifts the power to the Legislature. It can time when they send legislation to the Governor and box him in. He must sign or veto within a short time and they know it.
If they send spending bills in April but wait until 11:59 of the last day of May to pass a revenue bill, the Governor would be forced to choose between vetoing spending bills that might eventually would have been funded, or forced to sign whatever spending bill is sent at the last second.
The judge's ruling cites no Constitutional provision, no law, no case, saying the Governor must act that way. This is a political fight between the legislative and executive branches. Absent clear and convincing law showing the Governor acted wrongly, the court should have kicked it back to them.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Dec-09 04:51 PM
Joe, Thanks for framing the argument this way. Stop back often, especially after the hearing.
PS- HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Comment 4 by Walter Hanson at 31-Dec-09 04:53 PM
The thing is at the time the governor acted there was a budget deficit. Revenues as projected weren't going to exceed spending. Since the governor on his own can't increase taxes he had to cut spending.
Furthermore by announcing the cuts so early we have the chance for:
* If people don't like the spending cuts to restore them by cutting something else.
* To allow people to properly plan for spending cuts. If we get to few dollars left to cut and less time to cut you have horrible cuts in programs which we're trying to protect.
* And is it constitutional for a judge to order Minnesota to deficit spend when the constitution says we have to have a balance budget?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by R-Five at 31-Dec-09 05:39 PM
One other question: exactly how does the State do short term borrowing if the State constitution insists on a balanced budget. We can borrow money we don't have but can't spend money we don't have?
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Jan-10 03:26 AM
R, That's probably a question best directed at King. I'd hate to give a wrong answer.
Comment 6 by eric z. at 02-Jan-10 01:31 PM
Which of those people interpreting the opinion lawyers?
And Brod, she misstates who sued.
Can you trust that? People who had the meal program they needed as a health matter Pawlentyized where the plaintiffs.
The legislature was amicus.
Comment 7 by eric z. at 02-Jan-10 01:34 PM
Do you have a link for the Kiffmeyer quote? Would you give it in a comment? Is it her full statement?
Comment 8 by eric z. at 02-Jan-10 01:38 PM
Quick poll - Gary and other commenters:
How many went to the Minnesota Constitution and read some of it before commenting.
I did.
